Authentic Leadership and Program Implementation

Improving the implementation and outcomes of public reform and service delivery programs is a continual challenge for public managers. The less than desirable efficacy of large-scale public reform programs (e.g. Stokes and... [ view full abstract ]

Improving the implementation and outcomes of public reform and service delivery programs is a continual challenge for public managers. The less than desirable efficacy of large-scale public reform programs (e.g. Stokes and Clegg, 2002) suggests there is still significant scope for improvement. New public management has, for the most part, focused on formal management systems, such as management control systems to improve outcomes (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2000). However, an over reliance on formal management systems and their assumption of rationality masks the important role that the leadership of informal processes, such as dialogic communication processes (e.g. Shaw, 2002; Taylor and Kent, 2015), can contribute.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the practice and academic implications of authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2011) and stakeholder dialogic communication (Schein, 1993; Senge, 2006; Taylor and Kent, 2015) on improving public program implementation and outcomes. We argue that advances in the success of program implementation can be made by changing the way we think about leadership and implementation; in particular we are concerned with a concept of leadership that is value-based, relational; that leadership is a reciprocal influence between leader and followers.
In particular, we argue that three key factors influence program implementation success; (1) the capacity for dialogue (Schein, 1993; Senge, 2006; Taylor and Kent, 2015) or conversations (Shaw, 2002) among key stakeholders, that is, those who are affected by the program or its implementation (or their representatives), (2) the capacity for effective dialogue relies on authentic leadership and authentic follower-ship (Gardner et al. 2011), and (3) organisational contextual support in the form of cultural and skills support.
The paper contributes to the literature on improving public program outcomes by incorporating both practitioner and academic perspectives on the role of dialogic communication (Taylor and Kent, 2015).

References
Gardner, W. L. Cogliser, C. C. Davis, K. M. and Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: a review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1120-1145.
Kahane, A. (2007). Solving tough problems: an open way of talking, listening, and creating new realities. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public management reform: a comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Puuya Foundation Message Stick – Full Circle (2012). Available at https://vimeo.com/46597081
Chesterman, R. N. (2013). Queensland Health Payroll System Commission of Inquiry Report. Available from http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/TabledPapers/2013/5413T2967.pdf
Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organisational learning. Organisational Dynamics, 22, 40-51.
Senge, P. (2006) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, 2nd edn (London: Century).
Shaw, P. (2002). Changing conversations in organizations: a complexity approach to change. London: Routledge.
Stokes, J. and Clegg, Stewart, R. (2002). Once upon a time in bureaucracy: power and public sector management. Organization, 9(2), 225-248.
Taylor, M. and Kent, M. L. (2015). Dialogic engagement: clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26, 384-398.